[freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-16 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Tuesday 15 September 2009 01:51:32 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > > There are several confounding factors. ?First, the data aren't > > independent; there should be local clustering, and I seem to have > > double-counted the links to my node (18 out of

[freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-16 Thread Evan Daniel
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 15 September 2009 01:51:32 Evan Daniel wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: >> > There are several confounding factors. ?First, the data aren't >> > independent; there should be local clustering, and I

Re: [freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-16 Thread Evan Daniel
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 15 September 2009 01:51:32 Evan Daniel wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: >> > There are several confounding factors.  First, the data aren't >> > independent; there should be local clustering, and I

Re: [freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-16 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Tuesday 15 September 2009 01:51:32 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > > There are several confounding factors.  First, the data aren't > > independent; there should be local clustering, and I seem to have > > double-counted the links to my node (18 out of

[freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-14 Thread Evan Daniel
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > There are several confounding factors. ?First, the data aren't > independent; there should be local clustering, and I seem to have > double-counted the links to my node (18 out of 353 data points) (links > between my peers would also be double-

Re: [freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-14 Thread Evan Daniel
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > There are several confounding factors.  First, the data aren't > independent; there should be local clustering, and I seem to have > double-counted the links to my node (18 out of 353 data points) (links > between my peers would also be double-

[freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-14 Thread Evan Daniel
The fundamental routing model for Freenet (opennet and darknet) is based on an assumption of proper distribution of link lengths (the distance between the two endpoint nodes). In order to achieve good routing efficiency, the cumulative distribution of link lengths should follow a logarithmic curve

[freenet-dev] Link length distribution

2009-09-14 Thread Evan Daniel
The fundamental routing model for Freenet (opennet and darknet) is based on an assumption of proper distribution of link lengths (the distance between the two endpoint nodes). In order to achieve good routing efficiency, the cumulative distribution of link lengths should follow a logarithmic curve